From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sw=E2mi?= Petaramesh Subject: Re: Rename BTRfs to MuchSlowerFS ? Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:15:19 +0200 Message-ID: <1411501.d4mgBNBG2i@tethys> References: <4E64D3D5.7020407@petaramesh.org> <15663472.1RTxtZJx8a@tethys> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Fajar A. Nugraha" To: linux-btrfs Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: Le Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 00:11:25 vous avez =E9crit : > Reading your post, at this point I'd actually recommend you stick wit= h > ext4. I actually shifted back from BTRFS to ext4 and fell like having offered= myself=20 a brand new computer, about 20 times faster, me happy ;-) > Both btrfs and zfs are great, but IMHO btrfs is not ready for > daily use by "ordinary" user yet, while zfs is a memory hog > (especially for laptops, which is part of the reason why I'm using > btrfs instead of zfs on this one). True, ZFS is excellent but a memory hog (and strongly advises using a 6= 4-bit=20 OS) but I was surprised to discover that BTRFS was such a memory eater = itself,=20 with kernel 3.0. My system was swapping like mad ! I use (kernel) ZFS on my 64-bit main machine and I'm plain happy with i= t, and=20 tried ZFS on my 32-bit laptop in the hope to get more performance for l= ess=20 memory ; alas I just got a memory-hungry system running damn slow... Fo= r the=20 time being I will stick to ZFS for 64-bit machines with >=3D 4GB RAM, a= nd to=20 ext4 for 32-bit systems with less RAM... I don't feel that BTRFS gives any advantage in its current state of=20 development. Alas. --=20 Sw=E2mi Petaramesh http://petaramesh.org PGP 907= 6E32E -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html